Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 53 minutes ago, deathstar said: The players generate the revenue. If it weren’t for them there would be no league. Same for the teams themselves. How could you sit down in front of the players association and justify not giving them a percentage of the revenue? Follow up: As mentioned previously, the players are replaceable. Thats not some insincere or disdainful thought. Thats simple fact. The concept of "scarcity" is on the teams/team owners side. There's lots of football players and you'd be amazed how accepting the paying public would be for a slightly "lesser" talent after a good/concerted marketing program. Our perceptions are already well managed by one of (if not the best....) marketing programs out there: the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 34 minutes ago, Leader said: Follow up: As mentioned previously, the players are replaceable. Thats not some insincere or disdainful thought. Thats simple fact. The concept of "scarcity" is on the teams/team owners side. There's lots of football players and you'd be amazed how accepting the paying public would be for a slightly "lesser" talent after a good/concerted marketing program. Our perceptions are already well managed by one of (if not the best....) marketing programs out there: the NFL. Because it is illegal for the NFL owners to collude to keep player salaries low. They just wrote a check to Kaepernick for doing so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 46 minutes ago, Leader said: Follow up: As mentioned previously, the players are replaceable. Thats not some insincere or disdainful thought. Thats simple fact. The concept of "scarcity" is on the teams/team owners side. There's lots of football players and you'd be amazed how accepting the paying public would be for a slightly "lesser" talent after a good/concerted marketing program. Our perceptions are already well managed by one of (if not the best....) marketing programs out there: the NFL. It's not a simple fact that good QB play is replaceable. I think dozens of NFL franchises would strongly argue against that. Also strongly disagree with your notion that the public would be fine to pay the same price for the product, but see a decrease in their investment due to the owners being cheap with paying QBs. People complain about TNF matchups all the time, if Blake Bortles and Sam Bradford suddenly became the norm of NFL QB play, there would be a sharp decline in interested parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: It's not a simple fact that good QB play is replaceable. I think dozens of NFL franchises would strongly argue against that. Also strongly disagree with your notion that the public would be fine to pay the same price for the product, but see a decrease in their investment due to the owners being cheap with paying QBs. People complain about TNF matchups all the time, if Blake Bortles and Sam Bradford suddenly became the norm of NFL QB play, there would be a sharp decline in interested parties. I feel like once they knew the quality was lower because they wouldn't spend the money, they'd dwell on that constantly and make it a bigger deal than it even is. Every sloppy play or game would be blamed on it. IDK how they ends up financially but people would definitely ***** constantly, they already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 45 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Because it is illegal for the NFL owners to collude to keep player salaries low. They just wrote a check to Kaepernick for doing so. True - but I'm not suggesting that. What I've been questioning is whether a position player - QB in this instance - EVER reaches a max contract / salary level simply because its been statistically determined that they can only produce so much. Do you keep paying increasing salary for the same return? Again - I've selected certain statistical metrics simply to keep the discussion pared down and make it possible - but certainly there's some person/persons out there that's developed a composite of today's QB based on statistics. When we talk "positional value" in a sense, we're applying that rule stick. Sure - it might be in context of a Guard versus a Tackle - or something similar - but the concept is the same other than we're not the ones cutting the check. We're applying our measurement of worth based on past positional performance and hoped for future returns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Norm said: I feel like once they knew the quality was lower because they wouldn't spend the money, they'd dwell on that constantly and make it a bigger deal than it even is. Every sloppy play or game would be blamed on it. IDK how they ends up financially but people would definitely ***** constantly, they already do. But would the "quality" drop off be egregious? People chatter endlessly about the FEW "elite" QBs in the league. Is that blunting their interest in spending/watching? Based on the league's bottom lines, it doesnt seem like it. In addition, players are cut or released all the time because the team deems them maxed out $$$$ and/or production-wise. In fact, one of the prime preoccupations of many "fans" is determining player value in relation to the check getting mailed out each week. Has the fact many players are thought to be overpaid governed any of your spending and/or viewing habits? Would you leave the sport if you deemed players "underpaid?" - by some metric or calculation? In those 10 years of yardage stats - AR's name didnt show up once - yet he very recently was the highest player in the league. Anyway - interesting discussion. Thanks for the insights. Edited May 28, 2019 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Leader said: But would the "quality" drop off be egregious? Not sure. But my theory is in their eyes it would be huge because they'd look for it everywhere. I'd agree with you more if I thought most people behaved rationally Edited May 28, 2019 by Norm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Leader said: True - but I'm not suggesting that. What I've been questioning is whether a position player - QB in this instance - EVER reaches a max contract / salary level simply because its been statistically determined that they can only produce so much. Do you keep paying increasing salary for the same return? Again - I've selected certain statistical metrics simply to keep the discussion pared down and make it possible - but certainly there's some person/persons out there that's developed a composite of today's QB based on statistics. When we talk "positional value" in a sense, we're applying that rule stick. Sure - it might be in context of a Guard versus a Tackle - or something similar - but the concept is the same other than we're not the ones cutting the check. We're applying our measurement of worth based on past positional performance and hoped for future returns. The entire thrust of your argument is that statistics should have a large impact on a player’s salary. While success and impact are reflected somewhat in statistics there is no 1:1 correlation, nor should there be. And I believe success and impact are a larger barometer of a players worth. I understand that you feel players are replaceable. That may be true. But in my opinion that’s more of a reason that they should earn a percentage of revenue during their brief careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBPFan Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, deathstar said: The entire thrust of your argument is that statistics should have a large impact on a player’s salary. While success and impact are reflected somewhat in statistics there is no 1:1 correlation, nor should there be. And I believe success and impact are a larger barometer of a players worth. I understand that you feel players are replaceable. That may be true. But in my opinion that’s more of a reason that they should earn a percentage of revenue during their brief careers. I think the point is that perhaps the cap should be distributed more evenly between QBs and non-QBs. If the teams let the QB salary inflation continue, it will impact their ability to keep other good players that can help them win games. A QB, no matter how good he is, is not on the field all of the time. He can't throw the ball to himself either. I see the point and it's a good discussion point but each team will have to come up with their own solution to his problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, GBPFan said: I think the point is that perhaps the cap should be distributed more evenly between QBs and non-QBs. If the teams let the QB salary inflation continue, it will impact their ability to keep other good players that can help them win games. A QB, no matter how good he is, is not on the field all of the time. He can't throw the ball to himself either. I see the point and it's a good discussion point but each team will have to come up with their own solution to his problem. I understand that it seems like QB salary inflation is a problem, but my point has been that this is only a function of salary cap increases driven by revenue increases. This bares itself out by looking at QB's cap numbers as a percentage as opposed to a dollar amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, deathstar said: The entire thrust of your argument is that statistics should have a large impact on a player’s salary. While success and impact are reflected somewhat in statistics there is no 1:1 correlation, nor should there be. And I believe success and impact are a larger barometer of a players worth.\ A. I'm not posing or making an argument. B. Player contract offers are comprised by more than statistical data - but "success" and "impact" are difficult measurements to make in a discussion like this. 1 hour ago, deathstar said: I understand that you feel players are replaceable. That may be true. But in my opinion that’s more of a reason that they should earn a percentage of revenue during their brief careers. It's not my understanding....or perhaps it is actually. CLEARLY players are replaceable. It's not a question of possibly being true. It's fact. They're getting replaced all the time. Not daily - but frequently. It's an ongoing process. I wont say "never ending" but yeah, it kinda is. This isnt some personal feeling of mine. Its happening all the time. Gerald McCoy just got "replaced". Who was it before him? I cant remember. Who will it be next. Just stayed tuned. Lots of "replacements" happen with nothing more than an announcement on Twitter. Vita Vea got drafted last year....and the clock started ticking on McCoy. Edited May 28, 2019 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 16 minutes ago, Leader said: A. I'm not posing or making an argument. 4 hours ago, Leader said: What I've been questioning is whether a position player - QB in this instance - EVER reaches a max contract / salary level simply because its been statistically determined that they can only produce so much. Do you keep paying increasing salary for the same return? 6 hours ago, Leader said: Again - does a player - an individual player (and for ease of discussion purposes, we're using the QBs because they have the most recognizable salaries and have experienced the greatest gains) - have a cap on his earning capability since he can only produce so much on the field? Thats the thrust of the discussion. Again, conceptually speaking: if the top tier QBs can only throw for 5000 yards and are humanely incapable of throwing more than 5000 yards - are they worth more over time? Should industry revenue drive a players salary (?) - and if it increases - should the Owners pay more that those same 5000yards? 19 hours ago, Leader said: This is true and I stated previously in this discussion I think the CBA mandates the players are supposed to get 48% of revenues. Not sure of the % but I think its something like that. But positionally - a player has to max out at some point simply based on his ability to produce. If you're not trying to make a point why do you continue to ask questions that tie contracts to statistics? Quote It's not my understanding....or perhaps it is actually. CLEARLY players are replaceable. It's not a question of possibly being true. It's fact. They're getting replaced all the time. Not daily - but frequently. It's an ongoing process. I wont say "never ending" but yeah, it kinda is. This isnt some personal feeling of mine. Its happening all the time. Gerald McCoy just got "replaced". Who was it before him? I cant remember. Who will it be next. Just stayed tuned. Lots of "replacements" happen with nothing more than an announcement on Twitter. Vita Vea got drafted last year....and the clock started ticking on McCoy. Here you address a point I already gave you - but don't address why that makes it more reasonable for players to get a share of the league revenue during their careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 18 minutes ago, deathstar said: If you're not trying to make a point why do you continue to ask questions that tie contracts to statistics? Because it's a discussion and I was looking for your feedback. So far the only alternative methods of calculating a player's worth (other than statistics) that you've provided is "impact" and "success" - which when assessing an individual player's value - in a team game - is a somewhat nebulous method and difficult to implement systemically or broadly. 20 minutes ago, deathstar said: Here you address a point I already gave you - but don't address why that makes it more reasonable for players to get a share of the league revenue during their careers. I never said "it's more reasonable for players to get a share of the league's revenue during their careers" Either thats a typo or you misread / misunderstood my comments. I said that collectively - the players on any given team receive 48% of that organizations revenue - no? I think its 48% The team owners / GMs determine how much of that 48% an individual player is entitled to....perhaps based on impact and success metrics you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Leader said: Because it's a discussion and I was looking for your feedback. So far the only alternative methods of calculating a player's worth (other than statistics) that you've provided is "impact" and "success" - which when assessing an individual player's value - in a team game - is a somewhat nebulous method and difficult to implement systemically or broadly. I never said "it's more reasonable for players to get a share of the league's revenue during their careers" Either thats a typo or you misread / misunderstood my comments. I said that collectively - the players on any given team receive 48% of that organizations revenue - no? I think its 48% The team owners / GMs determine how much of that 48% an individual player is entitled to....perhaps based on impact and success metrics you mention. Well I also said a player's contract is also based on position and age. You're right: impact and success are hard to quantify, but those four things are literally what influenced a player like Za'Darius Smith getting the contract he got from us despite limited statistical output. In regards to the bolded you're right: I said that. You've insisted that players do not deserve an ever-increasing contract, which to me implies that they don't deserve a percentage of revenue. Am I misunderstanding that? Edited May 28, 2019 by deathstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 28, 2019 Author Share Posted May 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, deathstar said: Well I also said a player's contract is also based on position and age. You're right: impact and success are hard to quantify, but those four things are literally what influenced a player like Za'Darius Smith getting the contract he got from us despite limited statistical output. In regards to the bolded you're right: I said that. You've insisted that players do not deserve an ever-increasing contract, which to me implies that they don't deserve a percentage of revenue. Am I misunderstanding that? I've tried to put it in explainable and understandable context....choosing some QB stats for discussion purposes. Its obviously more complex than simply total yards and TDs - but we're not here to reinvent the wheel and I'm not making an argument - but what seems like a rational point: If a QB - regardless of name, organization, age, etc - can only throw for so many yards, TDs etc - why are they entitled to an ever increasing salary? Their on the field production CAN be quantified based on past performance, rules interpretations etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.